Re: roff.c question

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

>>   2) We should implement some kind of stack limit
>>      and just bail out.
>
> OK to commit the following patch, too?
>
> The constant of 1000 is the same that new groff is using,
> and i'm mostly indifferent regarding the question which number
> to use.
>
>
> Note though that groff_char.man still puts a terrible strain on mandoc
> even with these two patches:
>
>    9219 lines of output, including
>    1416 ERROR: input stack limit exceeded, infinite loop?
>    3328 ERROR: skipping unknown macro
>      10 other errors and warnings
>    4465 lines of completely garbled output on stdout
>
> On my old, slow test box, mandoc groff_char.man runs
> more than two minutes with these two patches.
>
> But i don't really see the point in trying to improve this.
> We won't get anything even semi-sensible out of this input
> without implementing full roff.

Ingo, this is fine by me---conditional upon (1) making the variable be 
part of struct roff and not static, and (2) stating the existence of a 
limit in roff.7.  I realise this is putting a lot of technical detail in 
roff.7 (as per last patch response, too) but I'm really, really sick of 
groff's crappy, undocumented behaviour and would rather too much than 
too little.

Can you pop an entry into the TODO to the extent that more rigorous 
checking of looping constructs should be enacted?

Thanks again, Ingo!

Kristaps
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv